Starcraft 2 makes major announcements (and I am off the hype train)

[Ail]

Final-Fan said:

bbsin said:

(sigh)

One guy from this thread said: "No Lan = no buy.... torrent then"

Another one seemed so disgusted that he went on to talk about Blizzard as if they're doing some horrible deed then goes on to imply that he'll also pirate the game.

Based off the posts from those people, you can easily tell that they are disgruntled by Blizzard's decision and method but they still want the game due to the fact that they plan to torrent it, illegally. Heck, if they didn't want the game, why some people be so fired up about the removal of LAN support?

So..."I hate you / what you did, so I'm not buying this even though I want it"

Doesn't that sound familiar?

Some people are disfavoring the decision to take away LAN and are not buying the game as a result to show it. It's not as simple as: "oh, the sole purpose of having starcraft is so I can play via LAN" or "SC2 MUST have LAN for me to deem it valuable". In that case, you're all telling me that they wouldn't torrent SC2 if it did have LAN? Think about it. They're not buying SC2 because they want to express their disfavor towards Blizzard's decision, which ultimately hurts the company.

It's not hard to grasp at all, especially if you read. I suppose some of you happen to think that a boycott without riots, hate signs and an attempt to bring a dealer down doesn't exist. If that's the case, it'd be a waste of my time to expect any reasonable outcome from continuing.

@Theshrike: Well first off, I never directed my boycott statement towards anyone in this thread, you assumed that I did, that's how it started. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether a definition is "widely" used over another, that doesn't negate the fact that another meaning exist. Third, your example (as well as c0rd's) is nothing like how some people in this thread expressed their decision in not buying SC2. And finally, you're not getting my point if you think I'm implying that as long as someone refrains from buying a product, it'd be considered a boycott. That's simply not the case. It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results.

Don't be stupid.  If they pirate it because of no LAN then they don't want it ENOUGH TO PAY FOR IT.  At least not when piracy is an option.  Assuming they were telling the truth about buying it in the first place, the value was enough with LAN that they would choose to pay for it even though piracy was an option, but not without LAN.

[edit:  "It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results."  Lacking any sort of explicit protest, the result of a boycott and simply not buying a product is exactly the same.  You've said so yourself if I'm not mistaken.  Thus, the difference you're talking about is entirely within the possible boycotter's mind.  You are making assertions about other people's thoughts with no evidence.  How am I wrong?] 

 

Not sure I follow the logical reasonning there by the way.

ppls saying no lan = pirate instead of buy are basically saying :

 

I would purchase a Lexus because it has all those cool features but I would steal a camri because it doesn't have them ......

Typically people steal the better stuff and purchase the cheaper more common one :P

 

PS : and no piracy is not an option. Stop acting like pirates have a moral code of conduct and only pirate stuff that is not worth purchasing, that's like the lamest excuse for piracy. People pirate because there are so many people doing it they think they can get away with it and will never get caught......